ArticleFrontiers in surgery2022
Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression Vs. Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Application of RhBMP-2 in Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.BMC surgery · 2024Trial
- Endoscopic Spine Surgery vs. Conventional Approaches for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Biomechanical assessment of endoscopic cross-over top decompression in cervical spinal stenosis: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Postoperative complications and mechanical outcomes following endoscopic versus open lumbar fusion: A propensity-matched analysis.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Totally endoscopic trans‑superior articular process lumbar interbody fusion: A case series on the development and preliminary evaluation of an innovative minimally invasive lumbar spine surgical technique.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical efficacy of two approaches for endoscopic lumbar fusion surgery in the treatment of single-segment lumbar spondylolisthesis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion in patients with lumbar instability and analysis of prognostic factors.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion vs. posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of bilateral lumbar spinal stenosis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Is endoscopic technique an effective and safe alternative for lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2024Article
- Surgical site infection rates in open versus endoscopic lumbar spinal decompression surgery: A retrospective cohort study.World neurosurgery: X · 2024Article
- Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PETLIF): Current Techniques, Clinical Outcomes, and Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is a new technology that is mostly used for single-segment and unilateral lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to introduce percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) with unilateral laminotomy for bilateral decompression (ULBD) for lumbar spondylolisthesis and evaluate the efficacy by comparing it with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in PE-PLIF with the ULBD group and the open PLIF group. The perioperative data of the two groups were compared to evaluate the safety of PE-PLIF with ULBD. The visual analog scale (VAS) back pain, VAS leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores of the two groups preoperatively and postoperatively were compared to evaluate clinical efficacy. Preoperative and postoperative imaging data were collected to evaluate the effectiveness of the operation. Results: No differences in baseline data were found between the two groups ( Conclusion: The results from this study indicate that ULBD can be successfully performed during PE-PLIF, and the combined procedure is a safe and reliable treatment method for lumbar spondylolisthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.